The Southern Cross? I been told the northern sky is, better.If the stars are visible. There are many reasons for not finding the North Star.It is Never! needed for navigation in cities. Thank God. I can't find it in an urban sky. Can you?

Assuming that a) you are in the northern hemisphere, and b) the Big Dipper is visible, you can find Polaris by one of two ways.

1) Locate the Big Dipper (aka The Plough, the Butcher's Cleaver, the Starry Plough, this constellation). Once the constellation is located, find the stars α UMa (Dubhe) and β UMa (Merak). If picturing the constellation as a spoon, drinking gourd, ladle, etc., those two stars are the ones opposite the end of the of the handle, with Dubhe being at the top of the "cup". Draw an imaginary line from Merak to Dubhe, then continue that line for five additional times the distance between Merak and Dubhe. If you do so, you will find Polaris.

2) Download Google Star Maps to your smart phone and scan a 165-degree arc in the direction you are facing while rotating clockwise very slowly. Eventually, you will locate Polaris. (Depending upon the speed of your rotation, it may require several rotations to locate.)

There are two general categories of opinion: regular opinions and informed opinions.Please do not argue with me unless your opinion falls into the latter category.

Rotherian wrote:Assuming that a) you are in the northern hemisphere, and b) the Big Dipper is visible, you can find Polaris by one of two ways.

1) Locate the Big Dipper (aka The Plough, the Butcher's Cleaver, the Starry Plough, this constellation). Once the constellation is located, find the stars α UMa (Dubhe) and β UMa (Merak). If picturing the constellation as a spoon, drinking gourd, ladle, etc., those two stars are the ones opposite the end of the of the handle, with Dubhe being at the top of the "cup". Draw an imaginary line from Merak to Dubhe, then continue that line for five additional times the distance between Merak and Dubhe. If you do so, you will find Polaris.

Or even easier: if the Big Dipper is visible, the Little Dipper probably is too. The North Star is the end of the handle of the Little Dipper.

And yeah Addams, star maps are not very useful in cities where (A) you can't see the stars thanks to light pollution and (B) streets and local landmarks are more important than absolute geographical directions. But the point was that in ancient times, for people wandering days and days of open seas or flat country with no landmarks to navigate by, realizing that you had "skymarks" ever-present overhead no matter where you were was a big boon.

Pfhorrest wrote:Or even easier: if the Big Dipper is visible, the Little Dipper probably is too. The North Star is the end of the handle of the Little Dipper.

I dunno. There have been several times where I could locate the Big Dipper and Polaris, but couldn't resolve the rest of the Little Dipper (without using a telescope or other vision enhancers beyond prescription spectacles).

There are two general categories of opinion: regular opinions and informed opinions.Please do not argue with me unless your opinion falls into the latter category.

Pfhorrest wrote:Or even easier: if the Big Dipper is visible, the Little Dipper probably is too. The North Star is the end of the handle of the Little Dipper.

I dunno. There have been several times where I could locate the Big Dipper and Polaris, but couldn't resolve the rest of the Little Dipper (without using a telescope or other vision enhancers beyond prescription spectacles).

In any case, it's usually:

a) Look up, b) big and/or little dipper, c) you've got Polaris.

The only thing tricky about it is when you spend too much time examining maps and can't shake the feeling that Polaris is supposed to be in the middle of the sky.

You have touched on something that I can only imagine.It seems I can not imagine what a life under the stars would be like.I did not believe the story of the North Star, the first time I heard it.So funny. I was holding out for an alternative hypothesis until I saw the photo. Someone centered the North Star on the lens and left it open all night. Great photo. It made a believer out of me.

The poor guys that noticed the predictable movements of the stars. Cave family and friends asking, "What have you been smoking?"

The star map app (Say that three time fast.) Will be great.

Pfhorrest wrote:[quoute="Rotherian"]Assuming that a) you are in the northern hemisphere, and b) the Big Dipper is visible, you can find Polaris by one of two ways.

1) Locate the Big Dipper (aka The Plough, the Butcher's Cleaver, the Starry Plough, this constellation). Once the constellation is located, find the stars α UMa (Dubhe) and β UMa (Merak). If picturing the constellation as a spoon, drinking gourd, ladle, etc., those two stars are the ones opposite the end of the of the handle, with Dubhe being at the top of the "cup". Draw an imaginary line from Merak to Dubhe, then continue that line for five additional times the distance between Merak and Dubhe. If you do so, you will find Polaris.

Or even easier: if the Big Dipper is visible, the Little Dipper probably is too. The North Star is the end of the handle of the Little Dipper.

And yeah Addams, star maps are not very useful in cities where (A) you can't see the stars thanks to light pollution and (B) streets and local landmarks are more important than absolute geographical directions. But the point was that in ancient times, for people wandering days and days of open seas or flat country with no landmarks to navigate by, realizing that you had "skymarks" ever-present overhead no matter where you were was a big boon.[/quote]

Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.Some of us see The Gutter.Some of us see The Stars.by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Ordination to Consencration to Desecration.Following the rules would have taken me to Solem. That would have been the quick trip to Philosophy.

The Star App is like a very good book.Jupiter? That thing is Jupiter? Really?

Three wise men following a star? Pfft.Humans are diurnal. Humans are creatures of the day. Right?Who walks or sails around at night?Night after night for generations?Evolutionary pressure in favor of insomnia?

Salem leads to Philosophy.Desecration will lead there, too.Eventually.

Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.Some of us see The Gutter.Some of us see The Stars.by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

addams wrote:Three wise men following a star? Pfft.Humans are diurnal. Humans are creatures of the day. Right?Who walks or sails around at night?Night after night for generations?Evolutionary pressure in favor of insomnia?

addams wrote:Three wise men following a star? Pfft.Humans are diurnal. Humans are creatures of the day. Right?Who walks or sails around at night?Night after night for generations?Evolutionary pressure in favor of insomnia?

Maybe they followed the day-star?

Yes. That's the easy way.I did it that way.I, predictably, run out of land.

Jupiter? Nah. Here in the North it is cold at night.Jupiter is far away. Does it always catch the light that way?

I was startled by starlight, once upon a time.I was walking on a new moon night. It was Dark!My head was down. I was concentrating on the path.Suddenly there were Stars! They were reflected in a mud puddle.

It made me jump. I am not afraid of stars. Stars coming out of the ground, is a little off putting.

Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.Some of us see The Gutter.Some of us see The Stars.by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Xefer's radial map seems to be down, can anyone else confirm? It was working at around 1900 BST last night.Back up now

Also, does anyone know how to get a download of Wikipedia? I don't want to load their servers when I could be working from my own. It's reasonably easy to trim an article down to its name and first non italicised, non parenthesised link, then you could make a reasonably complete map.

And the articles I'm aware of that link directly to philosophy are Subjectivity, Physics and Modern Philosophy. But all of that will change soon enough. (Found more, list stands at Subjectivity, Objectivity (philosophy), Object (philosophy), Modern philosophy, Natural philosophy, Philosophy of mathematics, Type–token distinction, Open source, Proposition)

Loops atOrientale Province -> Provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo -<United states Constitution -> Supremacy Clause -> Article 6 of the United states constitution-<

I've found an exception to the rule stated in the alt-text; interestingly enough, I found it by starting at the xkcd page. I eventually ended up in an endless loop between "newpaper" and "periodical publishing". So that's always fun.

Wiki wrote:As of May 26, 2011, 94.52% of all articles in Wikipedia lead eventually to the article Philosophy. The remaining 100,000 (approx.) links to an article with no wikilinks or with links to pages that do not exist, or get stuck in loops (all three are equally probable).

Armitando wrote:Alt text: Wikipedia trivia: if you take any article, click on the first link in the article text not in parentheses or italics, and then repeat, you will eventually end up at "Philosophy".

The actual "sink"/"drain" is around around "Knowledge" (oddly enough). It goes Knowledge->Fact->Experience->Know-How->Tacit Knowledge-->Knowledge. Actually, the Philosophy article gets sucked into the Knowledge drain, too. Just like most articles about science (or Game of Thrones, for that matter).However, there is at least one other independent loop with Lecture->Presentation-->Lecture.

the Knowlege page has since been "fixed" by linking to awarenessApprently there was some trouble with some people swapping the links to information and facts, and adding the link to awareness has resolved that dispute (at least for now).

I've been walking the archive while waiting for programs to compile the last couple weeks. I know this is several years old and probably a well-beaten horse, but I tested the "Philosophy" theory and... I'll be darned. I love xkcd.

Presumably they're arguing about arguments, though, not simply about the "argument" article. I think I'm tending to the Davidsonian school of thought here. Except for trivial cases in which the referent is literally the sequence of letters making up the word, the distinction is at least highly permeable.

True, presumably they must be arguing about argument as a practice or concept, rather than as an article. I think arguments about individual arguments - and thereby a lot of edit wars in practice - are likely meta-arguments in a sense that is true but not funny, in any case where the editors disagree about the presentation of a particular controversy, but without necessarily taking sides within it.

Argument about argument as it exists as an activity, and not necessarily the term / article that provides / shares its name and refers to it, certainly is meta-argument in a funnier but still true sense.

So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.